Did Mark Cuban have to waive Finley?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Isiah, is that you? That situation is a disaster. DISASTER! I'm sorry, I can't emphasize that enough. Starbury, Franchise, Jerome James, and Q-Rich are all absolute garbage. They need to throw away at least half of their roster. I'd much rather half a frugal owner (and chum you'll never convince me that Cubes is actually frugal, but I will play along here), than an owner who is willing to let my team get that messed and worse yet as Isiah continues to screw up the situation. Cubes is 100x better than that.

Oh, I see. You are saying that the owner should have stepped in said: No, you don't!

That's fair enough. All I was talking about was the money Dolan and Cuban dole out. I don't typically like to imagine owners involved in GM decisions. I like to think that they set the budget and then get the hell out.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If you were a GM, you are saying you would rather work for Cuban?

Of course I would probably rather work for Dolan. Why? He gives a ridiculous amount of money for you to spend, and he doesn't expect any results. Who wouldn't want a job where you get absolute freedom, and don't ever have to deliver? Pretty sweet deal, I'd say.

As a fan though, give me Cuban every time.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Of course I would probably rather work for Dolan. Why? He gives a ridiculous amount of money for you to spend, and he doesn't expect any results. Who wouldn't want a job where you get absolute freedom, and don't ever have to deliver? Pretty sweet deal, I'd say.

As a fan though, give me Cuban every time.

That's what I'm saying.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Oh, I see. You are saying that the owner should have stepped in said: No, you don't!

That's fair enough. All I was talking about was the money Dolan and Cuban dole out. I don't typically like to imagine owners involved in GM decisions. I like to think that they set the budget and then get the hell out.

No, I'm saying the owner should have half a brain, realize a situation isn't working, and fire the GM. An owner doesn't have to be GM, but he does actually need to be aware of what's going on in his organization.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Starbury, Franchise, Jerome James, Q-Rich, J-Rose, Maurice Taylor, Jamal Crawford, *Allan Houston*, Malik Rose...

As it is so eloquently said in the ghetto; "They be f*cked."

[Thespiralgoeson]

So what, chum, is it just the principle of the thing?

I mean, who gives a shit which owner's method has actually produced successful results? It's just the principle.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's what I'm saying.

As a fan, you'd really rather have Cuban? Chum, I think that's the first semi-complimentary thing you have said about Cuban in 2 years.

[kriD]

Finley's 'act' turns off Cuban

By DWAIN PRICE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS - Contrary to popular opinion, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and former Mavs All-Star player Michael Finley are not at odds with each other.

Yes, Cuban offered Finley's family the opportunity to sit in his American Airlines Center suite to watch the three Western Conference semifinal games between the Mavs and the San Antonio Spurs. However, Finley refused to take Cuban up on his offer.

Finley is still hurt over the events of last summer when Cuban used the NBA's new amnesty rule to waive the Mavs' former go-to guy. But he was all smiles Friday after the Spurs evened the best-of-seven series against the Mavs at 3-3 with a 91-86 victory.

Game 7 is Monday night in San Antonio with Cuban again trying to get the best of Finley.

"I like Mike," Cuban said. "I offered him the use of my suite to put his family in there with my family.

"I have a lot of respect for Michael Finley. I just don't have respect for his acting ability."

It's Finley's "acting ability" that has Cuban and Mavs fans riled. Cuban believes the "punch" Mavs guard Jason Terry hit Finley with didn't warrant a one-game suspension from the NBA.

The controversy, which forced Terry to sit out Game 6 on Friday, put Finley in the middle of a firestorm. During Friday's pregame introduction, Finley was booed louder than any Spur, but that didn't affect his performance.

Finley finished with 16 points, six rebounds and two steals in 45 minutes. He was 6-of-10 from the field.

"I'm thrilled for Michael," Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said. "He's such a class act, no matter what the circumstances or what's going on in the game.

"He's been one of our leaders. He comes in a tough situation for him and in a place where he was a leader for so long, without malice. He comes in and competes with class. I couldn't be more proud of him."

Cuban said Finley faked the impact of the "punch" from Terry.

"Every action film's got a villain, and Mike plays one on TV," Cuban said. "When he was here, there were many times when he'd bait a guy into doing something so he can try to get a technical.

"When it's your team, it's a crafty veteran move, and when it's the other team, it's a plot. It's not personal."

Asked if there was any bad blood between him and Finley, Cuban said: "Not on my end at all. Do I still want everybody in the arena to boo him? Yeah.

"And when they see him walking down the street I hope they shake his hand."

[madape]

Cuban's 'act' turns me off.

I just hope the bastard didn't cost us one, maybe two, championships.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How is Cuban better than Dolan? Dolan didn't cut Allan Houston, who the fucking rule was NAMED after! Gimme a break. If you were a GM, you are saying you would rather work for Cuban?

C'mon, now, Spiral. You have made a number of very good points in this thread. But I don't see what you are getting at in saying that Cuban does more for a team than Dolan does. You will have to spell that out for me, as evidently I am too shallow to recognize what you are saying.

Chum, the only reason he didn't cut him is because he knew he was going to retire due to injuries, and after a year his salary cap hit would be gone. It was a business move, pure and simple. The team benefitted more by not cutting him.

You know this too, you're just twisting the situation to help your arguement.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I thought they were paying Fin the MLE. My apologies if they aren't.

Regardless, my logic is still sound (even if for a different amount). You weren't saving Fin's FULL contract by cutting him. You were saving his contract minus what a team like the Spurs (and, I hope, like your own team) would pay him.

I can't find any documentation of this, but I think you're wrong here. My recollection of the rule at the time was that you saved the full Luxury Tax amount PLUS you saved whatever the next team paid him off of his salary. The reason for this was so that a player did not double dip in salaries, and earn 50 mil from the Mavs and 15 mil from the Spurs.

Again, I'm not totally sure, and I'm looking for confirmation, but I think we're saving MORE based on what the Spurs paid him, not less.


Edit to add:

I found this in a Stein article explaining the CBA:

Another factor is the "set-off provision" that was restored to the amnesty clause in the final stages of collective bargaining. The set-off provision returns a percentage of what a player makes from his new team to the team paying off his terminated contract.

In the new deal, the union fought to specifically word the amnesty clause to say that the set-off provision doesn't apply. That would have enabled players such as Houston and Finley to double-dip by collecting the full balance of their old contracts in addition to the payments from their new deals. But the league wouldn't give in, insisting that a chunk of an amnesty player's new earnings go back to the original team.

So, it's the Luxury Savings PLUS a portion of what he's making now, not minus. So your estimates are way off.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I can't find any documentation of this, but I think you're wrong here. My recollection of the rule at the time was that you saved the full Luxury Tax amount PLUS you saved whatever the next team paid him off of his salary. The reason for this was so that a player did not double dip in salaries, and earn 50 mil from the Mavs and 15 mil from the Spurs.

Again, I'm not totally sure, and I'm looking for confirmation, but I think we're saving MORE based on what the Spurs paid him, not less.


Edit to add:

I found this in a Stein article explaining the CBA:



So, it's the Luxury Savings PLUS a portion of what he's making now, not minus. So your estimates are way off.

I believe you are accurate sir.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by Drbio

He was cut for financial reasons and it was a good financial move.

The NBA is a talent ACQUISITION business. If you start making decisions based on finances then you are no diffferent than Sterling.

I agree that Finley needed to be cut since it was obvious that Avery didn't want him. But that was Avery's problem. Finley went to a coach just as tough and is thriving. So the player/coach dissagreement could have settled by Avery but it wasn't.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

IAnd yes, we probably should be able to keep both Dirk and Josh, however that would NOT be the case if Nash and Finley were still here (and really, isn't that what this whole debate is about?) Also, we very well could lose Terry this offseason. We just have to hope we can keep him at a reasonable price.

Actually we are FAR more likely to lose valuable players NOW. Cubes seems intent on getting below the LT barrier (gotta have money to pay them fines) so we are going to LOSE some of our talent.

[mattyd]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

We gotta resign Dirk and J-Ho? Didn't Dirk sign his contract the same year as Finley or the year after? As far as J-Ho goes after we let KVH walk Cuban will not be losing a thing as far as money goes.

If we can sign KVH on the cheap I'd like that...guys like him off the bench have a place in this league.

And this whole thread begs the question, who would you rather have off the bench, Stack or Finley? That was the debate when the amnesty thing happened. I think we can agree that last night it would have been nice to have Finley coming off the bench to give the Mavs some extra O.

[mattyd]

Originally Posted by mattyd

If we can sign KVH on the cheap I'd like that...guys like him off the bench have a place in this league.

And this whole thread begs the question, who would you rather have off the bench, Stack or Finley? That was the debate when the amnesty thing happened. I think we can agree that last night it would have been nice to have Finley coming off the bench to give the Mavs some extra O.

Oh, and will some of the peeps that understand the cap and trades and the CBA talk about the possibility of trading Quis. It is becoming clear that he doesn't fit in with Avery.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Yeah... because there's no fucking salary cap in baseball.

Good lord, it's like talking to a child. But it shouldn't be... Chum, please... This is beneathe you.

There is only a SOFT cap in the NBA. Our payroll can be ONE BILLION DOLLARS (cue Dr Evil) if Cubes wanted.

[mattyd]

Originally Posted by madape

Cuban's 'act' turns me off.

I just hope the bastard didn't cost us one, maybe two, championships.

I couldn't agree more. His whole bit is just tired now. I remember camping out for tickets to the Mavs v. Jazz playoff series - Cuban was out there goofin' off with the fans. I thought it was cool. I thought it was cool when he was stirring the pot in the media.

But now it is all so old and he just comes off looking like a fool.

[Rhylan]

Here's why Finley had to be waived:

He was not fitting in with the Mavs new direction. In a Mavs uni, he was always treated as it was "his team" and never played less than 42 minutes a game. Worse yet, he'd had terrible results contributing anything when playing less than 42 minutes a game. Worse yet, he'd been reduced to an under-duress jump shooter who couldn't guard anybody. He was going to HAVE to let his minutes go down to the 25 - 30 range, and soon.

Would he have done it quietly this year in a Dallas uni? Maybe, but Nellie and Avery had both made little comments last year that barely hinted at Finley not wanting to take a lesser role because he was a leader and it was his team.

So Avery and others are sitting around after last year's season, thinking about personnel and the coming year. Finley's a potential sore spot - you're looking at a guy who STILL can't dribble and his contributions are less and less with each passing day.. but he's making $51m for the next three years. Could be trouble.

Along comes the amnesty rule... Cuban had to take it. I don't blame him one bit. This team is better on the perimeter without Finley, even though we definitely miss his shooting.

Problem is, a lot like Nash, Finley got a fire lit under his ass from the separation, and here we sit.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Come on, Spiral. Come on! Steinbrenner never gave up a useful player over money! That's why he is named Steinbrenner!!

Totally apples and oranges.. it's a whole lot easier to stash an overpaid, limited veteran on a 25 man roster where he can DH or play half-games at first base or in right field.

[dude1394]

You are knocking them outta the park rhylan. kudos.

[birdsanctuary]

Well at least I know now that lightning does strike twice.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Here's why Finley had to be waived:

He was not fitting in with the Mavs new direction. In a Mavs uni, he was always treated as it was "his team" and never played less than 42 minutes a game. Worse yet, he'd had terrible results contributing anything when playing less than 42 minutes a game. Worse yet, he'd been reduced to an under-duress jump shooter who couldn't guard anybody. He was going to HAVE to let his minutes go down to the 25 - 30 range, and soon.

Would he have done it quietly this year in a Dallas uni? Maybe, but Nellie and Avery had both made little comments last year that barely hinted at Finley not wanting to take a lesser role because he was a leader and it was his team.

So Avery and others are sitting around after last year's season, thinking about personnel and the coming year. Finley's a potential sore spot - you're looking at a guy who STILL can't dribble and his contributions are less and less with each passing day.. but he's making $51m for the next three years. Could be trouble.

Along comes the amnesty rule... Cuban had to take it. I don't blame him one bit. This team is better on the perimeter without Finley, even though we definitely miss his shooting.

Problem is, a lot like Nash, Finley got a fire lit under his ass from the separation, and here we sit.

You know, last night in postgame interview he said that the booing at AAC has lit the fire. He said during the regular season he was cheered and it was hard for him to focus... and now in the post-season he is getting booed, something he doesn't understand.... but is giving him motivation and allowing him to focus.

[rabbitproof]

So, basically, some Mavericks fans want an owner who has an infinite amount of money...

Good luck with that.

[Dtownsfinest]

Originally Posted by mattyd

If we can sign KVH on the cheap I'd like that...guys like him off the bench have a place in this league.

And this whole thread begs the question, who would you rather have off the bench, Stack or Finley? That was the debate when the amnesty thing happened. I think we can agree that last night it would have been nice to have Finley coming off the bench to give the Mavs some extra O.

Well as of right now i'd definately say Finley but its hard for me to believe that the same Finley playing for the Spurs is the one we would've got in Dallas. For whatever reason AJ and Fin just didn't co-exist.

[Big Shot Rob]

I have huge respect for AJ.

But the last comment is disturbing.

Even though Pop is a crusty old Air Force guy, he had to change with the times. He used to make Sean Elliott's life totally miserable. He did so also with Tony Parker. But with Manu--even though he gave Pop heart attacks the first year, even Pop stated that he had to change his tactics because with Manu, you take the good with the bad.

To me, that indicates that a great coach will have to treat his players as individuals--what works to motivate one may not work with another.

For whatever reason, Pop and Finley have forged a very close bond. Earlier in the year you could tell that Fin was struggling to learn the system. Pop was patient and did not overload Finley. Apparently his strategy works and if the Spurs prevail against the Mavs, you could argue that it is only because Finley led the way with a huge game 6.

AJ is still having to learn a few things is what I am getting at. I can understand the financial reasons--if you waive a man because you are going to fave several millions of dollars, that is understandable. But if a man like Finley who had great years with the Mavs had some problems with his rookie coach, that is something else.

As much as I love seeing Finley in San Antoinio, I hate to see the anguish in the man. As he says, he did not ask to be cut.

All in all--Aj still has some growing as a coach. But you guys have a jewel in AJ. He will definitely bring an NBA crown to Dallas, if not this year, then sometime very soon.

[Dtownsfinest]

Yea with AJ he grew up too fast. In his second year as a head coach he's coaching a 60 win team. I think by doing that we forget how young of a coach he really is. How much learning he has to go. People have to remember thatt this is his official first year as head coach.

[auffe34]

Do we cry and bitch and moan when a guy scores some points on us? I'd rather have the opportunity to keep players around with "chump change" of 51 million dollars. Why don't we let JET, Dirk, and Josh all leave just so we can keep Fin around. Give me a break, it is sickening to hear about all of this Fin love. Bottom line, all indicators were either Fin to Phoenix or Fin to Miami. He went to San Antonio, and here we are going into a game 7. I'll take it. Screw Fin, screw the Spurs. If we win this game, are we going to still sit around and cry because Fin scored some points against us? It's $51 MILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS PEOPLE!!!!!

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by MFFL

Actually we are FAR more likely to lose valuable players NOW. Cubes seems intent on getting below the LT barrier (gotta have money to pay them fines) so we are going to LOSE some of our talent.

I know. That's why I made it clear that it's very unlikely that we'll keep both Howard and Terry.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by MFFL

There is only a SOFT cap in the NBA. Our payroll can be ONE BILLION DOLLARS (cue Dr Evil) if Cubes wanted.

And the league basically punishes teams that do so.

It's still very difficult to make trades and sign free agents.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

I have huge respect for AJ.

But the last comment is disturbing.

Even though Pop is a crusty old Air Force guy, he had to change with the times. He used to make Sean Elliott's life totally miserable. He did so also with Tony Parker. But with Manu--even though he gave Pop heart attacks the first year, even Pop stated that he had to change his tactics because with Manu, you take the good with the bad.

To me, that indicates that a great coach will have to treat his players as individuals--what works to motivate one may not work with another.

For whatever reason, Pop and Finley have forged a very close bond. Earlier in the year you could tell that Fin was struggling to learn the system. Pop was patient and did not overload Finley. Apparently his strategy works and if the Spurs prevail against the Mavs, you could argue that it is only because Finley led the way with a huge game 6.

AJ is still having to learn a few things is what I am getting at. I can understand the financial reasons--if you waive a man because you are going to fave several millions of dollars, that is understandable. But if a man like Finley who had great years with the Mavs had some problems with his rookie coach, that is something else.

As much as I love seeing Finley in San Antoinio, I hate to see the anguish in the man. As he says, he did not ask to be cut.

All in all--Aj still has some growing as a coach. But you guys have a jewel in AJ. He will definitely bring an NBA crown to Dallas, if not this year, then sometime very soon.

I don't think it had as much to do with AJ as it did mike. Mike had been asked to take a bench role and balked. But after being cut(fired, laid off, whatever) a person must take stock in the situation.

I think he actually had to have something happen to make the transition easier. I don't think he would have been happy at all with griffin in a starting role for example.

[Dtownsfinest]

Originally Posted by auffe34

Do we cry and bitch and moan when a guy scores some points on us? I'd rather have the opportunity to keep players around with "chump change" of 51 million dollars. Why don't we let JET, Dirk, and Josh all leave just so we can keep Fin around. Give me a break, it is sickening to hear about all of this Fin love. Bottom line, all indicators were either Fin to Phoenix or Fin to Miami. He went to San Antonio, and here we are going into a game 7. I'll take it. Screw Fin, screw the Spurs. If we win this game, are we going to still sit around and cry because Fin scored some points against us? It's $51 MILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS PEOPLE!!!!!

Its not your $51 million so why do you care so much about another man's money? You didn't give a damn when we signed Dampier to a 70 million dollar contract and i'm sure you didn't mind giving Lafrentz 67 million. You agree with Cuban's decision on cutting Finley? Fine. But don't sit here and try to act as if you are sincere about Cuban's money because you just like me could give a damn about another man's money. Especially a billionaires money.

[dude1394]

I don't care about cubans money, but I'm also not going to sit here and tell him how to spend it.

[twelli]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

I have huge respect for AJ.

But the last comment is disturbing.

Even though Pop is a crusty old Air Force guy, he had to change with the times. He used to make Sean Elliott's life totally miserable. He did so also with Tony Parker. But with Manu--even though he gave Pop heart attacks the first year, even Pop stated that he had to change his tactics because with Manu, you take the good with the bad.

To me, that indicates that a great coach will have to treat his players as individuals--what works to motivate one may not work with another.

For whatever reason, Pop and Finley have forged a very close bond. Earlier in the year you could tell that Fin was struggling to learn the system. Pop was patient and did not overload Finley. Apparently his strategy works and if the Spurs prevail against the Mavs, you could argue that it is only because Finley led the way with a huge game 6.

AJ is still having to learn a few things is what I am getting at. I can understand the financial reasons--if you waive a man because you are going to fave several millions of dollars, that is understandable. But if a man like Finley who had great years with the Mavs had some problems with his rookie coach, that is something else.

As much as I love seeing Finley in San Antoinio, I hate to see the anguish in the man. As he says, he did not ask to be cut.

All in all--Aj still has some growing as a coach. But you guys have a jewel in AJ. He will definitely bring an NBA crown to Dallas, if not this year, then sometime very soon.

AJ's biggest task right now is to teach those guys how to make the right decisions when the game is on the line. How to avoid those brain farts.

Stackhouse, Terry, KVH, and Devin are most likely to become stupidos at the most inopportune time.

The Spurs were pretty flawless toward the end of last game. Making shots (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, Finley) and free throws (Duncan, Ginobili).

[Poindexter Einstein]

The rumored Minnesota deal - which included Cassell - was one that the Mavs would have done but Minnesota backed out of, not Dallas.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Here's why Finley had to be waived:

He was not fitting in with the Mavs new direction. In a Mavs uni, he was always treated as it was "his team" and never played less than 42 minutes a game. Worse yet, he'd had terrible results contributing anything when playing less than 42 minutes a game. Worse yet, he'd been reduced to an under-duress jump shooter who couldn't guard anybody. He was going to HAVE to let his minutes go down to the 25 - 30 range, and soon.

Would he have done it quietly this year in a Dallas uni? Maybe, but Nellie and Avery had both made little comments last year that barely hinted at Finley not wanting to take a lesser role because he was a leader and it was his team.

So Avery and others are sitting around after last year's season, thinking about personnel and the coming year. Finley's a potential sore spot - you're looking at a guy who STILL can't dribble and his contributions are less and less with each passing day.. but he's making $51m for the next three years. Could be trouble.

Along comes the amnesty rule... Cuban had to take it. I don't blame him one bit. This team is better on the perimeter without Finley, even though we definitely miss his shooting.

Problem is, a lot like Nash, Finley got a fire lit under his ass from the separation, and here we sit.

This is probably the best explanation I have heard for the situation. Good job, rhylan.

I love Finley, and I hate seeing him in a Spurs uniform. Still, I can't really blame Cuban for the move he made. Like Rhylan said, the Fin we are seeing the this series, probably isn't the Fin we would have seen all season long had we kept him. Although Fin's not admitting it, the Mavs' release of him certainly has fired him up for this series.

[nashtymavsfan13]

I blame Cuban for the Nash move, but the Finley move was just something unfortunatley had to be done, and it was best for this team. Yes we miss his shooting, but thats about it. I think it has made Dirk a better player, teammate and leader, and ultimatley was good for the franchise even though it seems to be biting us back this series.

And I probably only blame Cubes for not resiging Nash, cuz he was my favorite player behind Dirk. Maybe it was good for the franchise, but I think we could be just as good if not better with him.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

...tell me how the Dallas organization profitted by paying a man with the talent like Finley several million dollars (I don't know how much--what amount is Cuban paying Finley?) and then waiving him so that he could sign with any one of your several arch-rivals.

Mark Cuban would have to have been a complete idiot not to take advantage of the amnesty tax clause.

....let me restate that...if we agree that there is some upper limit to the amount of money a team can and should spend on player salaries, then Cuban would have been an idiot not to waive Finley. If we do not agree that there is an upper limit to spending on player salaries, then we should campaign for the job as GM of the Knicks.

a very brief lesson in economics matters first -- there are "sunk costs" and then there are "relevant costs". Sunk costs are just that -- they are things in which you've already sunk your money and cannot be avoided no matter what action you take, and are henceforth not relevant to decision making. Relevant costs are just that as well -- they are costs which are relevant to decision making.

Mike Fin's cost to the Mavs has two components....

1. his salary of 15mm/17mm/19mm -- this is a sunk cost. There is absolutely nothing the Mavs organization can do about avoiding this sunk cost.

2. matching luxury tax payments of 15mm/17mm/19mm -- these costs were made relevant by the opportunity of the amnesty tax clause.

....point being, the fact that Cuban is still paying Fin's salary is misleading -- the decision on whether to keep or not keep Fin came down to the relevant additional cost of paying (the league) an additional 15/17/19 over the next three years. Literally, the question to the Mavs was....

"Should we pay $51 mm over three years to keep a past his prime, 10 ppg, 4 rbd ('06 playoff stats) two guard?"

The answer is of course, "no, we can get a hell of a lot of 2-guard for a lot less $51 mm over three years."

Unfortunately, Doug Christie was not that two guard.

...if the Mavs are too be faulted for any part of this decision, IMO, it's for signing Doug Christie to fill in for Fin rather than anyone other than Doug Christie.

and it's of course easy to make critique decisions in hindsight ... perhaps had the Mavs a crystal ball they might have foreseen that a) Finley would go to SA, and not Miami or Pheonix; b) the Mavs and Spurs would meet in the playoffs; and c) the Mavs perimeter shooting 2-guard (for the series, at least) would be out because he punched someone in the 'nads, then maybe they would've done something a bit differently. Hindsight's 20-20, as they say.

cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

As much as I love seeing Finley in San Antoinio, I hate to see the anguish in the man. As he says, he did not ask to be cut.

Next time you're feeling really, really bad about Michael Finley's pain and anguish, you should remind yourself that the Mavs are paying him $50 million over the next few years....you or I should feel such anguish, eh?

say what you will about this season's Spurs v. Mavs ramifications....the most basic facts are these...

1. The Mavs and Finley made a deal in which Finley was to be paid a huge sum of money;
2. After Finley accepted the deal, his production (and effort as it appeared) went into the toilet;
3. The Mavs upheld every bit of their end of the bargain.

I don't see any reason here to cry for Fin.

Cheers

[Bookit]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

I have huge respect for AJ.

But the last comment is disturbing.

Even though Pop is a crusty old Air Force guy, he had to change with the times. He used to make Sean Elliott's life totally miserable. He did so also with Tony Parker. But with Manu--even though he gave Pop heart attacks the first year, even Pop stated that he had to change his tactics because with Manu, you take the good with the bad.

To me, that indicates that a great coach will have to treat his players as individuals--what works to motivate one may not work with another.

For whatever reason, Pop and Finley have forged a very close bond. Earlier in the year you could tell that Fin was struggling to learn the system. Pop was patient and did not overload Finley. Apparently his strategy works and if the Spurs prevail against the Mavs, you could argue that it is only because Finley led the way with a huge game 6.

AJ is still having to learn a few things is what I am getting at. I can understand the financial reasons--if you waive a man because you are going to fave several millions of dollars, that is understandable. But if a man like Finley who had great years with the Mavs had some problems with his rookie coach, that is something else.

As much as I love seeing Finley in San Antoinio, I hate to see the anguish in the man. As he says, he did not ask to be cut.

All in all--Aj still has some growing as a coach. But you guys have a jewel in AJ. He will definitely bring an NBA crown to Dallas, if not this year, then sometime very soon.

Barf. Look, Finley is due for a horrendous game. He can't string many good games in a row without a terrible game. That is just Finley. Here,in Dallas, he wouldn't play the reserve role. In SA, Finley can get yanked when he hits the back rim 8 or 9 times in a row.

You Spurs fans are completely arrogant. The only reason you ever win anything is because you have Tim Duncan. Don't think that Pop is some great coach or the Spurs franchise is something special. It just isn't. You won the lottery in a year when Duncan was sitting there. That's all there is to your "special" franchise.